Methods for inducing an immune response via buccal and/or sublingual administration of a vaccine

ABSTRACT

Vaccine compositions that may be administered to a subject via the buccal and/or sublingual mucosa are provided. Methods for administration and preparation of such vaccine compositions are also provided.

CROSS-REFERENCE TO RELATED APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation-in-part of International ApplicationNo. PCT/US11/45379, filed Jul. 26, 2011, which claims the benefit ofU.S. Provisional Application No. 61/367,631, filed Jul. 26, 2010, theentire disclosures of which are hereby incorporated by reference.

STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT INTEREST

This invention was made with government support under Grant Number U01AI078045 awarded by the National Institutes of Health. The governmenthas certain rights in the invention.

BACKGROUND

Vaccination has increased the average human lifespan worldwide more than10 years during the 20th century. Breakthroughs in immunology, molecularbiology and biochemistry in the last 25 years produced more than half ofthe vaccines used during the last 100 years. Despite this, littleprogress has been made in delivery since most are injectable and requirestrict maintenance of cold chain conditions.

Injectable vaccines have various drawbacks. Injections are the mostcommon reason for iatrogenic pain in childhood and deter many fromimmunization. Injectable vaccines pose a significant risk to the safetyof medical staff, patients and community. And most vaccines are unstableat ambient temperatures and require refrigeration.

SUMMARY

The present disclosure generally relates to vaccine compositions thatmay be administered to a subject via the buccal and/or sublingualmucosa. In some embodiments, the present disclosure also relates tomethods for administration and preparation of such vaccine compositions.

In one embodiment, the present disclosure provides a compositioncomprising an antigen dispersed within an amorphous solid.

In another embodiment, the present disclosure provides a methodcomprising administering a vaccine composition comprising an antigendispersed within an amorphous solid to the buccal and/or sublingualmucosa of a subject in an amount effective to induce an immune responseto the antigen.

In yet another embodiment, the present disclosure provides a methodcomprising providing an antigen and a solution comprising a sugar, sugarderivative or a combination thereof; dispersing the antigen within thesolution to form a mixture; and allowing the mixture to harden so as toform an amorphous solid.

The features and advantages of the present invention will be apparent tothose skilled in the art. While numerous changes may be made by thoseskilled in the art, such changes are within the spirit of the invention.

DRAWINGS

Some specific example embodiments of the disclosure may be understood byreferring, in part, to the following description and the accompanyingdrawings.

FIG. 1 is an illustration of a vaccine composition of the presentdisclosure, according to one embodiment.

FIG. 2 is an illustration of the removal of a layer of film prior tovaccine administration, according to one embodiment.

FIG. 3 is an illustration depicting buccal administration of a vaccinecomposition of the present disclosure, according to one embodiment.

FIGS. 4A-4D depict representative images of dried formulations of avirus-based vaccine for buccal administration after storage at roomtemperature (25° C.) for one month.

FIG. 5 is a graph depicting the ability of various formulations topreserve virus infectivity after dry storage for one month.

FIG. 6 is a graph depicting the ability of various formulations topreserve bacteria during drying and to promote growth upon rehydration.

FIGS. 7A-7F are images depicting buccal tissue excised from B10.Br miceimmunized with recombinant adenovirus.

FIG. 8A is an image representing the percentages of the averageproportion of each cell population that recognized and was activated byEbola Zaire glycoprotein for each of the indicated treatment groups.

FIG. 8B are graphs depicting the anti-ebola immune response in mice withpre-existing immunity to adenovirus that were immunized by thesublingual route in certain mucosal compartments.

FIG. 9A-9D are graphs depicting various serum levels after immunizationby various routes.

FIG. 10A is graph depicting the CD8 effector memory T cell response toan Ebola glycoprotein-specific peptide after immunization by variousroutes

FIG. 10B is a graph depicting the cytolytic T memory response to anEbola glycoprotein-specific peptide after immunization by variousroutes.

FIGS. 11A-11B are graphs depicting the antibody response against Ebolaglycoprotein after immunization by various routes.

FIG. 12 is a graph depicting the antibody response against Ebolaglycoprotein after immunization by various routes.

FIG. 13A is a graph depicting the survival rate of six different groupsof mice which have been exposed to mouse-adapted Ebola Zaire.

FIG. 13B is a graph depicting the change of body weight for sixdifferent groups of mice which have been exposed to mouse-adapted EbolaZaire.

FIGS. 14A-14E depict data obtained in naïve mice 10 days afterintramuscular immunization. This data shows that there is an evendistribution of CD8+ and CD4+ T cells activated against the adenovirus.

FIG. 15A-15D depict scanning electron micrographs of dried filmscontaining a recombinant adenovirus-based vaccine.

FIG. 16 shows that pre-existing immunity (PEI) to the adenovirus vaccinecarrier boosts the antigen-specific immune response induced bysublingual immunization. (A) shows analysis of CD8+ T cells expressingimmunoreactive cytokines by flow cytometery (FACS). Numbers written inthe upper right corner of each scatter plot represent the portion ofeach cell population that was activated by Ebola Zaire GP-specificpeptide sequences. (B) shows cumulate analysis of FACS data. Eachpositively responding cell is assigned to total 7 possible combinationsof IFN-γ, IL-2 and TNF-α and final numbers presented as a bar graph. (C)depicts Zaire GP-specific multifunctional CD8⁺ T cells in pie chartformat. Triple producers are depicted in the red arc. The blue archighlights cells producing IFN-γ only. Numbers in the pie chart denotethe percentage of triple producers in a given population. Results arereported as the mean±the standard error of the mean. **p<0.01, one-wayANOVA, Bonferroni/Dunn post-hoc analysis.

FIG. 17 shows that pre-existing immunity (PEI) to the adenovirus vaccinecarrier improves survival after lethal challenge following sublingualimmunization. Naive mice and those with prior exposure to adenovirusserotype 5 by IM or IN administration (indicated by IM PEI or IN PEI,respectively, n=10) were challenged with a lethal dose of MA-ZEBOV(30,000×LD₅₀) by I.P. injection 28 days after SL immunization. (A)Kaplan-Meier survival curve; (B) Body weight profile after challenge;(C) Serum alanine (ALT) and aspartate (AST) aminotransferase levels; (D)Serum cytokines post-challenge. For (C) & (D), all samples were taken 14days post challenge from survivors. Samples from non-survivors weretaken at time of death. * indicates a significant difference withrespect to the Naive/SL treatment group. *p<0.05, one-way ANOVA,Bonferroni/Dunn post-hoc analysis.

FIG. 18 shows results following sublingual immunization in Guinea Pigs.Naive guinea pigs and those with prior exposure to Ad5 by the IM or INroutes (indicated by IM or IN PEI, respectively, n=5) were challengedwith a lethal dose of guinea pig-adapted Zaire Ebola virus (1,000×LD₅₀).(A) Kaplan-Meier survival curve. (B) Body weight profile afterchallenge. (C) Serum alanine (ALT) and aspartate (AST) aminotransferaselevels post-challenge. For (C), samples from non-survivors were taken attime of death. Samples from survivors were taken 14 dayspost-challenge. * indicates a significant difference with respect to theNaive/SL treatment group. *, p<0.05, one-way ANOVA, Bonferroni/Dunnpost-hoc analysis.

FIG. 19 shows that formulations of the present disclosure canreconsitute the antigen-specific polyfunctional T cell and MemoryResponse in mice. Panels A-C show effector CD8 T cell responses. Tendays after vaccination, mononuclear cells from various tissues wereharvested, pooled according to treatment, stimulated with an Ebola ZaireGP-specific peptide and measured by ELISPOT (A) and intracellularcytokine staining (B, C). The number in the pie chart denotes thepercentage of triple producers. Panel D. Memory CD8 T cell responses.Memory CD8 T cell proliferation to Zaire GP was assessed in miceimmunized with formulated Ad-CAGoptZGP by IN route 42 days aftertreatment. A decrease in CFSE staining denotes cell division/expansion.Data reflect average values±the standard error of the mean for four miceper group. *indicates a significant difference with respect to theNaive/unformulated group, * p<0.05, **p<0.01, one-way ANOVA,Bonferroni/Dunn post-hoc analysis.

FIG. 20 shows the results of the protective efficiency of formulatedvaccine following IN administration in guinea pigs with mucosal PEI.Naive guinea pigs and those with prior exposure to adenovirus serotype 5via the nasal route (indicated by IN PEI, n=5) were challenged 28 daysafter immunization with a lethal dose of 1,000 pfu guinea pig-adaptedEbola Zaire (1,000×LD₅₀) by intraperitoneal injection. (A) Samples fromindividual guinea pigs were evaluated for the presence of ZGP-specificIgG subclasses and IgM by ELISA (OD at 450 nm). (B) Kaplan-Meiersurvival curve. (C) Body weight profile after challenge. (D) Serumalanine (ALT) and aspartate (AST) aminotransferase levelspost-challenge. Data reflect average values±the standard error of themean for five mice per group. * indicates a significant difference withrespect to the Naive/unformulated group. *, p<0.05, **, p<0.01, ***,p<0.001, one-way ANOVA, Bonferroni/Dunn post hoc analysis.

While the present disclosure is susceptible to various modifications andalternative forms, specific example embodiments have been shown in thefigures and are herein described in more detail. It should beunderstood, however, that the description of specific exampleembodiments is not intended to limit the invention to the particularforms disclosed, but on the contrary, this disclosure is to cover allmodifications and equivalents as illustrated, in part, by the appendedclaims.

DESCRIPTION

The present disclosure generally relates to vaccine compositions thatmay be administered to a subject via the buccal and/or sublingualmucosa. In some embodiments, the present disclosure also relates tomethods for administration and preparation of such vaccine compositions.

The buccal and the sublingual mucosa are attractive for the delivery ofmedicinal compounds and have largely been uninvestigated in the contextof protective immunization. The sublingual and the buccal epithelium arehighly vascularized, allowing direct entry into the systemiccirculation, avoiding pre-systemic metabolism of antigen in thegastrointestinal tract. They harbor a dense lattice of professionalantigen presenting cells (APCs), contain many T lymphocytes and directlyaccess mucosal-associated lymphoid tissues. One of the many advantagesof the present disclosure, many of which are not discussed herein, isthat a vaccine composition of the present disclosure may be administeredby direct application to the cheek (buccal) or under the tongue(sublingual), which may then induce a strong protective systemic andmucosal immune response. Furthermore, in those embodiments where thevaccine is a recombinant adenovirus (“Ad”)-based vaccine, it may beadministered via the buccal and/or sublingual mucosa with significantpotential for successful vaccination of those with pre-existing immunityto Ad5. Pre-existing immunity to Ad5 is a global phenomenon and iscurrently the most significant limitation to the use of these vectors.

The buccal and sublingual mucosa contain an immobile expanse of smoothmuscle upon which of a variety of dosage forms such as lozenges, gels,patches and films can reside (Pather, 2008). This supports an epitheliumof 40-50 layers of actively dividing squamous, non-keratinized cells(Wertz, 1991). Although this layer is the most significant barrier tothe absorption of large molecules though the cheek, cell turnover isslow (4-14 days), allowing for continued release of antigen (Hill,1984). Reagents that aid absorption of large molecules across the mucosa(surfactants, cyclodextrins, polyacrlyates) and polymers that facilitateinteraction with the surface (polycarbophil, carboxymethyl cellulose)also protect labile molecules from degradation at ambient temperatures(Hassan, 2010; Shojaei, 1998). Accordingly, the present disclosure isalso innovative in that it promotes a delivery method that could improvevaccine potency and physical stability at ambient temperatures.

In some embodiments, the present disclosure provides a vaccinecomposition comprising an antigen dispersed within an amorphous solid.As used herein, the term “antigen” means a substance that induces aspecific immune response in a host animal. The antigen may comprise awhole organism, killed, attenuated or live (including killed, attenuatedor inactivated bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites, prions or othermicrobes); a subunit or portion of an organism; a recombinant vectorcontaining an insert with immunogenic properties; a piece or fragment ofDNA capable of inducing an immune response upon presentation to a hostanimal; a protein, a polypeptide, a peptide, an epitope, a hapten, orany combination thereof. Alternatively, the antigen may comprise a toxinor antitoxin.

In general, an amorphous solid suitable for use in the presentdisclosure should be dissolvable upon contact with an aqueous liquid,such as a saliva. In some embodiments, amorphous solids suitable for usein the present disclosure may be formed from any sugar, sugar derivativeor combination of sugars/derivatives so long as the sugar and/orderivative is prepared as a liquid solution at a concentration thatallows it to flow freely when poured but also forms an amorphous phaseat ambient temperatures on a physical surface that facilitates thisprocess, such as aluminum or Teflon. Examples of suitable sugars mayinclude, but are not limited to glucose, dextrose, fructose, lactose,maltose, xylose, sucrose, corn sugar syrup, sorbitol, hexitol, maltilol,xylitol, mannitol, melezitose, raffinose, and a combination thereof.While not being bound to any particular theory, it is believed thatsugars minimize interaction of the antigen with water during storage anddrying, in turn, preventing damage to the three dimensional shape of theantigen due to crystal formation during the drying process andsubsequent loss of efficacy. An example of the surface characteristicsof an amorphous solid is illustrated in FIG. 15C. In some embodiments,an amorphous solid suitable for use in the present disclosure may have athickness of about 0.05 millimeters to about 5 millimeters.

In addition, in some embodiments, certain sugars may also function as abinder which may provide “substance” to pharmaceutical preparations thatcontain small quantities of very potent medications for ease ofhandling/administration. They may also hold components together orpromote binding to surfaces (like the film backing) to ease drugdelivery and handling. Lastly, they may also contribute to the overallpharmaceutical elegance of a preparation by forming uniform glasses upondrying.

In certain embodiments, the vaccine compositions of the presentdisclosure also may comprise a water-soluble polymer including, but notlimited to, carboxymethyl cellulose, carboxyvinyl polymers, high amylosestarch, hydroxyethyl cellulose, hydroxypropyl cellulose, hydroxypropylmethylcellulose, methylmethacrylate copolymers, polyacrylic acid,polyvinyl alcohol, polyvinyl pyrrolidone, pullulan, sodium alginate,poly(lactic-co-glycolic acid), poly(ethylene) oxide,poly(hydroxyalkanoate) and a combination thereof.

Furthermore, in some embodiments, the vaccine compositions of thepresent disclosure may further comprise one or more oils, polyalcohols,surfactants, permeability enhancers, and/or edible organic acids.Examples of suitable oils may include, but are not limited to,eucalyptol, menthol, vacrol, thymol, methyl salicylate, verbenone,eugenol, gerianol and a combination thereof. Examples of suitablepolyalcohols may include, but are not limited to, glycerol, polyethyleneglycol, propylene glycol, and a combination thereof. Examples ofsuitable edible organic acids may include, but are not limited to,citric acid, malic acid, tartaric acid, fumaric acid, phosphoric acid,oxalic acid, ascorbic acid and a combination thereof. Examples ofsuitable surfactants may include, but are not limited to, difunctionalblock copolymer surfactants terminating in primary hydroxyl groups, suchas Pluronic® F68 commercially available from BASF, poly(ethylene) glycol3000, dodecyl-β-D-maltopyranoside, disodium PEG-4 cocamidoMIPA-sulfosuccinate (“DMPS”), etc. It is believed that certainsurfactants may minimize interaction of the antigen with itself andother antigens and subsequent formation of large aggregated particlesthat cannot effectively enter and be processed by target and antigenpresenting cells. They may also be capable of weakening cell membraneswithout causing permanent damage and, through this mechanism, promoteuptake of large particles though rugged biological membranes such as thebuccal mucosa.

A vaccine composition of the present disclosure further comprises anantigen. Antigens suitable for use in the present disclosure may includeany antigen for which cellular and/or humoral immune responses aredesired, including antigens derived from viral, bacterial, fungal andparasitic pathogens and prions that may induce antibodies, T-cell helperepitopes and T-cell cytotoxic epitopes. Such antigens include, but arenot limited to, those encoded by human and animal viruses and cancorrespond to either structural or non-structural proteins. Furthermore,the present disclosure contemplates vaccines made using antigens derivedfrom any of the antigen sources discussed below and those that use thesesources as potential delivery devices or vectors. For example, in onespecific embodiment, recombinant adenovirus may be used to deliver Ebolaantigens for immunization against Ebola infection.

Antigens useful in the present disclosure may include those derived fromviruses including, but not limited to, those from the familyArenaviridae (e.g., Lymphocytic choriomeningitis virus), Arterivirus(e.g., Equine arteritis virus), Astroviridae (Human astrovirus 1),Birnaviridae (e.g., Infectious pancreatic necrosis virus, Infectiousbursal disease virus), Bunyaviridae (e.g., California encephalitis virusGroup), Caliciviridae (e.g., Caliciviruses), Coronaviridae (e.g., Humancoronaviruses 299E and OC43), Deltavirus (e.g., Hepatitis delta virus),Filoviridae (e.g., Marburg virus, Ebola virus), Flaviviridae (e.g.,Yellow fever virus group, Hepatitis C virus), Hepadnaviridae (e.g.,Hepatitis B virus), Herpesviridae (e.g., Epstein-Bar virus,Simplexvirus, Varicellovirus, Cytomegalovirus, Roseolovirus,Lymphocryptovirus, Rhadinovirus), Orthomyxoviridae (e.g., InfluenzavirusA, B, and C), Papovaviridae (e.g., Papillomavirus), Paramyxoviridae(e.g., Paramyxovirus such as human parainfluenza virus 1, Morbillivirussuch as Measles virus, Rubulavirus such as Mumps virus, Pneumovirus suchas Human respiratory syncytial virus), Picornaviridae (e.g., Rhinovirussuch as Human rhinovirus 1A, Hepatovirus such Human hepatitis A virus,Human poliovirus, Cardiovirus such as Encephalomyocarditis virus,Aphthovirus such as Foot-and-mouth disease virus O, Coxsackie virus),Poxyiridae (e.g., Orthopoxvirus such as Variola virus or monkeypoxvirus), Reoviridae (e.g., Rotavirus such as Groups A-F rotaviruses),Retroviridae (Primate lentivirus group such as human immunodeficiencyvirus 1 and 2), Rhabdoviridae (e.g., rabies virus), Togaviridae (e.g.,Rubivirus such as Rubella virus), Human T-cell leukemia virus, Murineleukemia virus, Vesicular stomatitis virus, Wart virus, Blue tonguevirus, Sendai virus, Feline leukemia virus, Simian virus 40, Mousemammary tumor virus, Dengue virus, HIV-1 and HIV-2, West Nile, H1N1,SARS, 1918 Influenza, Tick-borne encephalitis virus complex (Absettarov,Hanzalova, Hypr), Russian Spring-Summer encephalitis virus,Congo-Crimean Hemorrhagic Fever virus, Junin Virus, Kumlinge Virus,Marburg Virus, Machupo Virus, Kyasanur Forest Disease Virus, LassaVirus, Omsk Hemorrhagic Fever Virus, FIV, SIV, Herpes simplex 1 and 2,Herpes Zoster, Human parvovirus (B19), Respiratory syncytial virus, Poxviruses (all types and serotypes), Coltivirus, Reoviruses—all types,and/or Rubivirus (rubella).

Antigens useful in the present disclosure may include those derived frombacteria including, but not limited to, Streptococcus agalactiae,Legionella pneumophilia, Streptococcus pyogenes, Escherichia coli,Neisseria gonorrhosae, Neisseria meningitidis, Pneumococcus, Hemophilisinfluenzae B, Treponema pallidum, Lyme disease spirochetes, Pseudomonasaeruginosa, Mycobacterium leprae, Brucella abortus, Mycobacteriumtuberculosis, Plasmodium falciparum, Plasmodium vivax, Toxoplasmagondii, Trypanosoma rangeli, Trypanosoma cruzi, Trypanosomarhodesiensei, Trypanosoma brucei, Schistosoma mansoni, Schistosomajapanicum, Babesia bovis, Elmeria tenella, Onchocerca volvulus,Leishmania tropica, Trichinella spiralis, Theileria parva, Taeniahydatigena, Taenia ovis, Taenia saginata, Echinococcus granulosus,Mesocestoides corti, Mycoplasma arthritidis, M. hyorhinis, M. orale, M.arginini, Acholeplasma laidlawii, M. salivarium, M. pneumoniae, Candidaalbicans, Cryptococcus neoformans, Histoplasma capsulatum, Coccidioidesimmitis, Blastomyces dermatitidis, Aspergillus fumigatus, Penicilliummarneffei, Bacillus anthracis, Bartonella, Bordetella pertussis,Brucella—all serotypes, Chlamydia trachomatis, Chlamydia pneumoniae,Clostridium botulinum—anything from clostridium serotypes, Haemophilusinfluenzae, Helicobacter pylori, Klebsiella—all serotypes,Legionella—all serotypes, Listeria, Mycobacterium—all serotypes,Mycoplasma—human and animal serotypes, Rickettsia—all serotypes,Shigella—all serotypes, Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus—S.pneumoniae, S. pyogenes, Vibrio cholera, Yersinia enterocolitica, and/orYersinia pestis.

Antigens useful in the present disclosure may include those derived fromparasites including, but not limited to, Ancylostoma human hookworms,Leishmania—all strains, Microsporidium, Necator human hookworms,Onchocerca filarial worms, Plasmodium—all human strains and simianspecies, Toxoplasma—all strains, Trypanosoma—all serotypes, and/orWuchereria bancrofti filarial worms.

In another embodiment, an antigen is an aberrant protein derived from asequence which has been mutated. Such antigens may include thoseexpressed by tumor cells or aberrant proteins whose structure orsolubility leads to the formation of an aggregation-prone product andcause disease. Examples of aberrant proteins may include, but are notlimited to, Alzheimer's amyloid peptide, SOD1, presenillin 1 and 2,α-synuclein, amyloid A, amyloid P, CFTR, transthyretin, amylin,lysozyme, gelsolin, p53, rhodopsin, insulin, insulin receptor,fibrillin, α-ketoacid dehydrogenase, collagen, keratin, PRNP,immunoglobulin light chain, atrial natriuretic peptide, seminal vesicleexocrine protein, β2-microglobulin, PrP, precalcitonin, ataxin 1, ataxin2, ataxin 3, ataxin 6, ataxin 7, huntingtin, androgen receptor,CREB-binding protein, dentaorubral pallidoluysian atrophy-associatedprotein, maltose-binding protein, ABC transporter,glutathione-S-transferase, and thioredoxin.

In one embodiment, a vaccine composition comprising an amorphous solidmay be made by preparing a solution comprising a sugar, sugar derivativeor combination of sugars/derivatives in a buffer and optionally otheradditives previously mentioned. In some embodiments, a sugar, sugarderivative or combination of sugars/derivatives may be present in thesolution in an amount up to about 60% by weight of the solution. In someembodiments, an additive may be present in an amount of about 5% or lessby weight of the solution. In general, the solution comprising thesugar, sugar derivative or combination of sugars/derivatives is made ata concentration higher than the desired final concentration tocompensate for any dilution that may occur when the antigen is added.The desired antigen may be added to the solution at a concentrationknown to induce the desired immune response. The mixture may then bestirred at ambient temperature until a substantially homogeneous mixtureis obtained. In some embodiments, the mixture may then be brieflysonicated under cooled conditions, e.g. 4° C., to remove any air bubblesthat may have developed. In other embodiments, the mixture may beslightly heated, e.g., heated to 40° C. or below, slightly cooled, andin some instances may be frozen. In some embodiments, a vaccinecomposition of the present disclosure may be made without freeze dryingor spray draying. The final formulation may then be cast onto a flatbacking surface in a laminar flow hood and allowed to form an amorphoussolid at ambient temperatures (15-20° C.). Examples of suitable backingsurfaces may include, but are not limited to, thin layers of aluminum,Teflon, silicate, polyetheretherketone, low density polyethylene, ethylcellulose, etc. Once the process is complete the vaccine composition canbe peeled from the backing and placed in the mouth for immunizationpurposes and/or stored at ambient temperature for up to one year frommanufacture.

In another embodiment, a vaccine composition of the present disclosuremay be made by contacting an amorphous solid with an antigen, oroptionally, mixing an antigen with one or more excipients (surfactants,sugars, starches, etc.) and contacting the amorphous solid with themixture so as to dispose the antigen within the amorphous solid. In someembodiments, the mixture is then allowed to dry, which is then ready foradministration.

In some embodiments, vaccine compositions of the present disclosure mayfurther comprise a protective layer disposed on a surface of anamorphous solid comprising an antigen. Exemplary protective layers mayinclude, but are not limited to, an additional layer(s) of film, such aspolyethylene, polyurethane, polyether etherketone, etc., and/or anadditional layer(s) of an amorphous solid that does not contain anyantigen. One example of a vaccine composition comprising a protectivelayer is illustrated in FIG. 1. In some embodiments, the use of aprotective layer of film may minimize the absorption of moisture fromthe atmosphere and prevent adherence to other objects during storageand/or transport. Prior to administration, this layer may be removedfrom the device (e.g., by peeling the layer off) and may be discarded,as shown in FIG. 2.

The amount of antigen that may be used in a vaccine composition of thepresent disclosure may vary greatly depending upon the type of antigenused, the formulation used to prepare the vaccine composition, the sizeof the amorphous solid, the solubility of the antigen, etc. One ofordinary skill in the art with the benefit of this disclosure will beable to determine a suitable amount of antigen to include in a vaccinecomposition of the present disclosure. In one embodiment, a vaccinecomposition may comprise about 1×10⁶ to about 1×10¹³ virus particles fora virus-based vaccine or about 1×10³ to about 1×10¹³ colony formingunits for a bacteria-based vaccine.

It is also important to note that when formulating a vaccine compositionof the present disclosure one must also consider any toxicity and/oradverse effects. Furthermore, in an effort to create a stable vaccinecomposition, it may also be important to identify a ratio of ingredientsthat interacts with water and the antigen in a manner that preventscrystallization during drying. Formation of water crystals will puncturethe virus coat or bacterial wall and compromise the overall potency ofthe vaccine. Formulations that do this to the highest degree are said toform glasses.

In some embodiments, a glass plate can be used for casting of thevaccine composition, which can be dried under a controlled, laminar flowof air at room temperature, or under refrigerated conditions. Similarly,vaccine compositions suitable for use in the present disclosure can beprepared in a single-layer or multi-layers.

In general, the vaccine compositions of the present disclosure may beformulated so as to dissolve in a relatively short period of time, fromabout 5 to 60 seconds. When administered, a vaccine composition of thepresent disclosure may be handled by a portion of the composition thatdoes not contain an antigen and may be placed in the upper pouch of thecheek for buccal delivery, as shown in FIG. 3, or far under the tonguefor sublingual delivery (not shown).

In some embodiments, the compositions and methods of the presentdisclosure may also be used as a means for treating a variety ofmalignant cancers. For example, the vaccine compositions of the presentdisclosure can be used to mount both humoral and cell-mediated immuneresponses to particular proteins specific to the cancer in question,such as an activated oncogene, a fetal antigen, or an activation marker.Such tumor antigens include any of the various MAGEs (melanomaassociated antigen E), including MAGE 1, 2, 3, 4, etc.; any of thevarious tyrosinases; MART 1 (melanoma antigen recognized by T cells),mutant ras; mutant p53; p97 melanoma antigen; CEA (carcinoembryonicantigen), among others.

To facilitate a better understanding of the present invention, thefollowing examples of certain aspects of some embodiments are given. Inno way should the following examples be read to limit, or define, theentire scope of the invention.

Example 1

Recombinant adenovirus serotype 5 (5×10⁹ infectious virus particles) wasplaced in various formulations or saline (control solution) and airdried on 18 mm sterile polyurethane film disks. FIGS. 4A-4D depictrepresentative images of dried formulations of the virus-based vaccinefor buccal administration after storage at room temperature (25° C.) forone month. More specifically, FIG. 4A is virus dried in phosphatebuffered saline, pH 7.4. This buffer was the base for all formulationstested. Note obvious salt crystals that formed on the film after drying.FIG. 4B is virus dried in a formulation consisting of melezitose (10mg/ml), mannitol (40 mg/ml) and Pluronic F68 (0.001%) in phosphatebuffered saline. Sizable crystals were detected on the edge of the filmwhile the formulation appeared to form a fairly stable glass in thecenter of the film. FIG. 4C is virus dried in a formulation consistingof melezitose (10 mg/ml), mannitol (40 mg/ml) and poly(ethylene) glycol(PEG) 3000 (0.1%) in phosphate buffered saline. Replacing the PluronicF68 in the formulation in FIG. 4B to PEG promoted significant crystalformation on the majority of the film. FIG. 4D is virus dried in aformulation consisting of melezitose (10 mg/ml), sorbitol (40 mg/ml) andpoly(ethylene) glycol (PEG) 3000 (0.1%) in phosphate buffered saline.This formulation formed a nice glass with minimal crystal formation upondrying.

Formulations can Preserve Virus Infectivity after Dry Storage for OneMonth.

Recombinant adenovirus serotype 5 (5×10⁹ infectious virus particles)containing a maker transgene, beta-galactosidase, was placed informulations, spotted on 18 mm sterile polyurethane film disks andair-dried for 14 hours at room temperature (25° C.). Each film was thenstored in a clean, dry container at room temperature for one month. Atthat time, each film was washed with 300 microliters of sterile salineand the infectious titer of virus obtained in the wash determined by astandard limiting dilution assay on HeLa cells. Sixteen hours afterinfection, cells were stained with the chromogenic substrate,5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl-beta-galactoside, for 12 hours at 37° C. inthe dark. Blue lac⁺ cells were tallied from a minimum of 10 microscopefields (approximately 4,800 cells) and infectious titer calculatedaccording to standard protocols.

As shown in FIG. 5, infectious virus formulated in saline alone couldnot be detected in any samples prepared, dried and stored for one month.Formulation 1 consisted of virus dried in a formulation consisting ofmelezitose (10 mg/ml), mannitol (40 mg/ml) and Pluronic F68 (0.001%) inphosphate buffered saline. 1.92×10⁷ infectious virus particles/ml werefound in this formulation one month after storage. Although thisconcentration was significantly reduced from the concentration of thepreparation originally put on the film (5×10⁹ infectious virusparticles/ml, Initial on the graph), it is important to note thatsizable crystals were detected on the edge of the film while theformulation appeared to form a fairly stable glass in the center (FIG.4B).

Formulation 2 consisted of virus dried in a formulation consisting ofmelezitose (10 mg/ml), mannitol (40 mg/ml) and poly(ethylene) glycol(PEG) 3000 (0.1%) in phosphate buffered saline. Replacing the PluronicF68 in Formulation 1 with PEG promoted significant crystal formation onthe majority of the film (FIG. 4C) and subsequent loss of infectioustiter.

Formulation 3 consisted of virus dried in a formulation consisting ofmelezitose (10 mg/ml), mannitol (40 mg/ml) and poly(ethylene) glycol(PEG) 3000 (1%) in phosphate buffered saline. Increasing theconcentration of PEG in the formulation did not improve infectious titerof virus recovered from the film.

Formulation 4 consisted of virus dried in a formulation consisting ofmelezitose (10 mg/ml), mannitol (40 mg/ml) anddodecyl-β-D-maltopyranoside (DMPS, 100 nM) in phosphate buffered saline.Replacing the PEG in Formulation 3 with DMPS significantly improvedrecovery of virus after drying. The infectious titer of this preparationafter one month was 3.18×10⁹ infectious virus particles/ml.

Formulation 6 consisted of virus dried in a formulation consisting ofmelezitose (10 mg/ml), sorbitol (40 mg/ml) and PEG (0.1%) in phosphatebuffered saline. Infectious titer of this preparation was notcompromised during drying and storage since the infectious titer was notsignificantly different from the original concentration one month afterstorage (6.05×10⁹ vs. 5.19×10⁹ infectious virus particles/ml, Initial).It should be noted that this formulation formed a near perfect glass(FIG. 4D). Initial. Infectious titer of stock virus preparation prior toaddition to film for drying. Table 1 below is a summary of the variousformulations.

TABLE 1 Formulation Contents Phosphate Buffered Base for allformulations Saline (pH 7.4) Formulation #1 Melezitose (10 mg/ml),Mannitol (40 mg/ml) and Pluronic F68 (0.001%) Formulation #2 Melezitose(10 mg/ml), Mannitol (40 mg/ml), poly(ethylene) glycol (PEG) (0.1%)Formulation #3 Melezitose (10 mg/ml), mannitol (40 mg/ml),poly(ethylene) glycol (PEG) (1%) Formulation #4 Melezitose (10 mg/ml),mannitol (40 mg/ml), dodecyl-β-D-maltopyranoside (100 nM) Formulation #6Melezitose (10 mg/ml), sorbitol (40 mg/ml), PEG (0.1%)

Formulations Preserve Bacteria During Drying and Promote Growth UponRehydration.

Escherichia coli (strain DH5α, 1.93×10⁵ colony forming units/ml) wasspotted on 18 mm sterile polyurethane film disks and air-dried for 6hours at room temperature (25° C.). The following day, each film waswashed with 300 microliters of sterile saline and the amount of livingbacteria obtained in the wash determined by a dilution assay on agarplates containing a selective antibiotic. Colonies were counted 16 hoursafter plating and concentration of bacteria calculated according tostandard protocols.

As shown in FIG. 6, drying bacteria in saline (pH 7.4) alone overnightat room temperature reduced bacterial concentrations from 1.93×10⁵colonies/ml (Initial on graph) to 2.24×10⁴ colonies/ml. Formulation 1consisted of bacteria dried in a formulation consisting of melezitose(10 mg/ml), sorbitol (40 mg/ml) and PEG (1%) in phosphate bufferedsaline. There was no significant loss of bacteria upon rehydration(2.66×10⁵ colonies/ml) with respect to the initial concentration of thepreparation (1.93×10⁵ colonies/ml, Initial on graph).

Formulation 2 consisted of bacteria dried in a formulation consisting ofmelezitose (10 mg/ml), sorbitol (40 mg/ml) and Pluronic F68 (0.001%) inphosphate buffered saline. This formulation promoted bacterial growthupon rehydration with a slight increase in bacterial count noted(5.27×10⁵ colonies/ml).

Formulation 3 consisted of bacteria dried in a formulation consisting ofmelezitose (40 mg/ml), sorbitol (40 mg/ml) and PEG (1%) in phosphatebuffered saline. This formulation also promoted bacterial growth uponrehydration with an increase in bacterial count noted (8.38×10⁵colonies/ml).

Formulation 4 consisted of bacteria dried in a formulation consisting ofmelezitose (40 mg/ml), sorbitol (40 mg/ml) and Pluronic F68 (0.001%) inphosphate buffered saline. This formulation promoted bacterial growthupon rehydration with a slight increase in bacterial count noted(4.43×10⁵ colonies/ml).

Formulation 5 consisted of bacteria dried in a formulation consisting ofsucrose (10 mg/ml), sorbitol (40 mg/ml) and PEG (1%) in phosphatebuffered saline. This formulation did not significantly alter bacteriaconcentration upon rehydration (1.55×10⁵ colonies/ml).

Formulation 6 consisted of bacteria dried in a formulation consisting ofsucrose (10 mg/ml), sorbitol (40 mg/ml) and Pluronic F68 (0.001%) inphosphate buffered saline. This formulation was one of the mostsuccessful, preserving bacteria and facilitating growth uponreconstitution to a concentration of (1.04×10⁶ colonies/ml).

Formulation 7 consisted of bacteria dried in a formulation consisting ofsucrose (40 mg/ml), sorbitol (40 mg/ml) and PEG (1%) in phosphatebuffered saline. This formulation adequately preserved bacteria upondrying with a concentration of 1.04×10⁵ colonies/ml noted uponrehydration.

Formulation 8 consisted of bacteria dried in a formulation consisting ofsucrose (40 mg/ml), sorbitol (40 mg/ml) and Pluronic F68 (0.001%) inphosphate buffered saline. This formulation was successful, preservingbacteria and facilitating growth upon reconstitution to a concentrationof (1.06×10⁶ colonies/ml). Initial. Average bacterial concentration ofstock preparations prior to addition to film for drying.

TABLE 2 Formulation Contents Phosphate Buffered Base for allformulations Saline (pH 7.4) Formulation #1 Melezitose (10 mg/ml),sorbitol (40 mg/ml), PEG (1%) Formulation #2 Melezitose (10 mg/ml),sorbitol (40 mg/ml), Pluronic F68 (0.001%) Formulation #3 Melezitose (40mg/ml), sorbitol (40 mg/ml), PEG (1%) Formulation #4 Melezitose (40mg/ml), sorbitol (40 mg/ml), Pluronic F68 (0.001%) Formulation #5Sucrose (10 mg/ml), sorbitol (40 mg/ml), PEG (1%) Formulation #6 Sucrose(10 mg/ml), sorbitol (40 mg/ml), Pluronic F68 (0.001%) Formulation #7Sucrose (40 mg/ml), sorbitol (40 mg/ml), PEG (1%) Formulation #8 Sucrose(40 mg/ml), sorbitol (40 mg/ml), Pluronic F68 (0.001%)

Adenovirus Serotype 5-Based Vaccines Effectively Transduce the OralMucosa after Sublingual Administration and Stimulates Migration ofAntigen Presenting Cells to the Site of Vaccination.

Six week old B10.Br mice were immunized by placing 1×10⁸ infectiousparticles of a recombinant adenovirus containing the marker gene,beta-galactosidase (AdlacZ) in a volume of 10 μl with a micropipette.Animals were sacrificed 2 (FIGS. 7B and 7E) and 24 (FIGS. 7C and 7F)hours after immunization and submandibular and buccal tissue excised andplaced in OCT freezing medium. Cryosections taken 2 hours afterimmunization (FIG. 7B) did not display notable transgene expression withrespect to sections taken from mice given saline (FIG. 7A). In contrast,sections taken 24 hours after treatment contained concentrated patchesof the blue substrate of the beta-galactosidase transgene throughout thetissue (white arrows, FIG. 7C).

Antigen presenting cells at the site of administration are a keydeterminant of the potency of a vaccine as they can either prime CD8effector T cells or favor development of mucosal and systemic tolerance.Additional histochemical staining of sections for MHC II surfaceantigens reveal concentrated patches of MHCII cells such as macrophagesand dendritic cells at the site of vaccination (FIG. 7E, brown stainingfor MHC II surface antigens) and the subsequent dispersal of these cellsthroughout the mucosa 24 hours after immunization (FIG. 7F) at a levelhigher than that seen in unimmunized animals (FIG. 7D).

Sublingual Immunization (S.L.) with an Adenovirus Serotype 5-BasedVaccine Encoding Ebola Zaire Glycoprotein Produces a T Cell ResponseGreater than Oral Immunization (P.O.) and Similar to IntranasalImmunization (I.N.) and is Less Affected by Prior Exposure to Adenovirusthan any Other Method of Immunization.

B10.Br mice were immunized by various routes with 1×10⁸ infectiousparticles of a recombinant adenovirus expressing Ebola Zaireglycoprotein. A subset of these mice were given 2.5×10¹¹ particles of arecombinant adenovirus containing the marker gene, beta-galactosidase,by intramuscular injection 28 days prior to vaccination to inducecirculating anti-adenovirus antibodies similar to what is seen in thegeneral public. This group is denoted in FIG. 8A as IM PEI. (Line 2).Mice treated in this manner had an average antibody titer of 1:480reciprocal dilution prior to vaccination. Mice were sacrificed 10 daysafter vaccination. Splenocytes were harvested and stimulated with anEbola glycoprotein-specific peptide and stained with antibodies againstCD8 surface proteins and intracellular interferon gamma (IFN-γ).Activated T cells producing IFN-γ were identified by flow cytometry.Percentages written in each box represent the average proportion of eachcell population that recognized and was activated by Ebola Zaireglycoprotein in each treatment group.

Pre-Existing Immunity to Adenovirus Promotes the Anti-Ebola ImmuneResponse in Mice Immunized by the Sublingual Route in Certain MucosalCompartments.

Mice were treated as described in FIG. 8A. Lymphocytes were harvestedfrom various compartments and analyzed for production of IFN-γproduction in response to Ebola Zaire glycoprotein by ELISPOT. As shownin FIG. 8B, although pre-existing immunity compromised the response inthe spleen in all treatment groups, the response in the bronchioalveolarlavage fluid (BAL) was not compromised by prior exposure to adenovirusin mice vaccinated by the nasal and sublingual routes. Pre-existingimmunity also strengthened the anti-Ebola glycoprotein responses insubmandibular (SMLN) and mesenteric (MLN) lymph nodes of mice immunizedby the nasal and sublingual routes. Key: I.M.—intramuscular,I.N.—intranasal, S.L.—sublingual, P.O.—oral, IM PEI—pre-existingimmunity to adenovirus induced by intramuscular injection,BAL—bronchioalveolar lavage fluid, SMLN—submandibular lymph nodes,MLN—mesenteric lymph nodes. *p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001, one-wayANOVA, Bonferroni/Dunn post-hoc analysis.

Sublingual Immunization Significantly Reduces Production of IL-6 inResponse to the Adenovirus Vector and Minimizes Toxicity Associated withAdenovirus-Based Vaccines.

Systemic administration of recombinant adenoviruses induce a potentinnate immune response largely directed against the vector and lateragainst the transgene product. These effects are highlighted bysignificant increases in serum cytokines (IL-6, IL-12, TNF-α) as earlyas 6 hours after administration. It has also been found that animalswith increased levels of these cytokines often do not survive challengewith Ebola. The adenovirus also preferentially distributes to the liverand is rapidly taken up by both Kupffer cells and hepatocytes, whichcontribute to this effect. Hepatotoxicity can also occur, as indicatedby sharp increases in serum transaminases (AST/ALT) 4-7 days aftertreatment.

FIG. 9A shows serum interleukin 6 (IL-6) levels 6 hours afterimmunization by various routes. Significant increases in IL-6 were notedin mice vaccinated by the intramuscular (I.M., 90×control (PBS)) andintranasal (I.N., 50×control (PBS)). The amount of this cytokine insamples from mice immunized by the oral and sublingual routes were notsignificantly different than those given saline (PBS, negative control).

FIG. 9B shows serum IL-12 levels 6 hours after immunization by variousroutes. The amount of this cytokine in samples from each treatment groupwas not significantly different than those given saline (PBS, negativecontrol).

FIG. 9C shows serum tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) levels 6 hoursafter immunization by various routes. The amount of this cytokine insamples from each treatment group was not significantly different thanthose given saline (PBS, negative control).

FIG. 9D shows serum transaminases 4 days after vaccination. Serumalanine aminotransferase (ALT) and aspartate aminotransferase (AST)levels were significantly elevated in mice immunized by theintramuscular route. These enzymes were not significantly elevated inmice immunized by the nasal, oral or sublingual routes. Key:I.M.—intramuscular, I.N.—intranasal, S.L.—sublingual, P.O.—oral, IM*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001, one-way ANOVA, Bonferroni/Dunn post-hocanalysis.

Sublingual Immunization can Induce Strong, Long-Lasting T Cell-MediatedImmune Responses.

CD8 T cell memory is a crucial component of protective immunity againstmicrobial infection. Memory T cells, when present, can respond withenhanced kinetics and magnitude to ensure protection againstre-infection. The presence of immunological memory to Ebola glycoproteinwas assessed in mice immunized with recombinant adenovirus by variousroutes 42 days after treatment.

FIG. 10A depicts CD8 effector memory T cell response to an Ebolaglycoprotein-specific peptide after immunization by various routes asdetermined by an in vitro proliferation assay. CD8 memory T cells are aheterogeneous population that can be broadly segregated into two generalsubsets: central memory and effector memory T cells. Central memorycells are mainly located in lymphoid organs, expressing high levels ofCD44 and CD62L (CD44^(hi)CD62L^(hi)), are highly proliferative andrequire a relatively longer period of activation to achieve cytolyticproperties. Effector memory T cells express increased levels of CD44 butmarkedly reduced levels of CD62L (CD44^(hi)CD62L^(lo)), have lessproliferative potential, re-circulate preferentially throughnon-lymphoid tissues, and are immediately cytolytic upon re-exposure toantigen. This latter population of cells was identified in splenocytesof mice vaccinated by various routes stained with carboxyfluoresceindiacetate N-succinimidyl ester (CFDA SE), a fluorescent dye that isevenly diluted during cell division upon stimulation with an Ebolaglycoprotein-specific peptide for 5 days. Cells were then stained withanti-CD8, CD44 and CD62L antibodies and the (CD44^(hi)CD62L^(lo))population identified by flow cytometry. Mice immunized by theintramuscular route contained the highest number of CD8effector/effector memory cells. Those immunized by the nasal containedsimilar levels of memory cells while those immunized by the sublingualand oral routes had the lowest numbers of these cells out of alltreatment groups.

FIG. 10B depicts the cytolytic T memory response to an Ebolaglycoprotein-specific peptide after immunization by various routes asdetermined by an in vivo assay. Splenocytes from naïve mice wereharvested and divided into to 2 populations. The first was stained with5 μM CFDA SE (CFSE HIGH) and the second with 0.5 μM of the dye (CFSELOW). The CFSE HIGH group was pulsed with an Ebola glycoprotein-specificpeptide for 45 minutes while the CFSE LOW cells were not. An equalnumber of cells from each population were then given intravenously tomice immunized with recombinant adenovirus expressing Ebola glycoproteinby various routes 42 days after treatment. Twenty-four hours later, micewere sacrificed and single cell suspensions from spleen andsubmandibular lymph nodes (SMLN) were generated. Differential CFSEstaining patterns were identified in each population by flow cytometry.Significant reductions in the CFSE HIGH population is indicative ofrecognition and subsequent lysis of these cells in the immunized mice.

Sublingual Immunization Induces Circulating Anti-Ebola GlycoproteinAntibodies in NaïVe Mice and Those with Prior Exposure to Adenovirus ata Higher Level than Intramuscular Immunization.

Serum collected from all mice 42 days after vaccination was heatinactivated, serially diluted in 2 fold increments and placed in 96 wellplates coated with recombinant Ebola Zaire glycoprotein. Wells were thenincubated with antibodies against mouse antibody subclasses (IgG, IgG1,IgG2a and IgG2b) conjugated to horseradish peroxidase. After theaddition of the substrate, p-nitrophenyl phosphate, optical densities(O.D.) of each well were read at 450 nm on a microplate reader. Endpoint titers for each antibody isotype are expressed as the reciprocallog₂ of the last dilution giving an O.D. of 0.1 unit above backgroundlevels.

FIG. 11A shows that sublingual and intranasal immunization inducesproduction of significantly more circulating anti-Ebola glycoproteinantibodies than intramuscular immunization. For FIG. 11B, pre-existingimmunity to adenovirus 5 was established in a subset of these mice by asingle intramuscular dose of 2.5×10¹¹ particles of a recombinantadenovirus containing the marker gene, beta-galactosidase, 28 days priorto vaccination. Mice treated in this manner had an average antibodytiter of 1:480 reciprocal dilution prior to vaccination.

The antibody response against Ebola glycoprotein is somewhatstrengthened by sublingual immunization of mice with pre-existingimmunity to adenovirus 5. Pre-existing immunity blocked the IgG2aresponse in mice immunized by the intramuscular route. Key:I.M.—intramuscular, I.N.—intranasal, S.L.—sublingual, P.O.—oral, IM*p<0.05, **p<0.01, ***p<0.001, one-way ANOVA, Bonferroni/Dunn post-hocanalysis.

Sublingual Immunization Induces Significant Amounts of Anti-EbolaGlycoprotein Antibodies in the Bronchioalveolar Lavage Fluid (BAL) ofNaïve Mice and Those with Prior Exposure to Adenovirus 5 (IM PEI).

Pre-existing immunity was induced as described in FIGS. 8 and 11. Micetreated in this manner had an average antibody titer of 1:480 reciprocaldilution prior to vaccination, which is similar to what is observed inthe general population. Bronchoalveolar lavage (BAL) fluid was collectedfrom mice vaccinated by various routes in situ with a 20-gauge catheterinserted into the proximal trachea, flushing the lower airways threetimes with 1 milliliter of L15 culture media 42 days after immunization.Samples were diluted in 2-fold increments in 96 well plates as describedfor serum in FIG. 8.

As shown in FIG. 12, samples obtained from naïve mice immunized by thesublingual and nasal routes were significantly higher than thoseimmunized by the intramuscular route. Pre-existing immunity toadenovirus also did not significantly compromise antibody levels in BALof mice immunized by these routes (I.N., S.L.). Key: I.M.—intramuscular,I.N.—intranasal, S.L.—sublingual, P.O.—oral, IM *p<0.05, one-way ANOVA,Bonferroni/Dunn post-hoc analysis.

Sublingual Vaccination Performs in a Manner Similar to that ofTraditional Intramuscular Vaccination with Respect to Survival afterExposure to Mouse-Adapted Ebola Zaire.

To compare the efficacy of sublingual vaccination to that of traditionalintramuscular injection, mice were divided into 6 groups, vaccinated asdiscussed in more detail below and then the subsequent survival rate(FIG. 13A) and change in body weight (FIG. 13B) were recorded.

As shown in FIG. 13A, the first group consisted of control animals thatwere given phosphate buffered saline (“PBS”) (not vaccinated). Theseanimals expired within 7 days after exposure to mouse-adapted EbolaZaire.

The second group contained animals that were vaccinated by intramuscularinjection (“IM”). None of the animals expired after exposure tomouse-adapted Ebola Zaire.

The third group contained animals that were pre-exposed to adenovirus(the carrier for the vaccine) 28 days prior to vaccination viaintramuscular injection (“IM PEI/IM”) at a dose of 2.5×10¹¹ particles or5 times that used in standard evaluations of pre-existing immunity toadenovirus in the mouse.

The fourth group contained animals that were vaccinated via thesublingual mucosa with a low dose of vaccine (1×10⁷ infectious virusparticles) (“SL (low)”). Note this is one log lower than what was givenby the intramuscular route (1×10⁸ infectious particles). 30% of theanimals expired after exposure to mouse-adapted Ebola Zaire.

The fifth group contained animals that were vaccinated via thesublingual mucosa with the same dose of vaccine that was given by theintramuscular route (1×10⁸ infectious particles) (“SL”). 20% of theanimals expired after exposure to mouse-adapted Ebola Zaire.

The sixth group contained animals that were exposed to adenovirus (thecarrier for the vaccine) 28 days prior to vaccination via the sublingualmucosa (“IM PEI/SL”) at a dose of 2.5×10¹¹ particles.

The seventh group contained animals that were exposed to adenovirus (thecarrier for the vaccine) for 28 days prior to vaccination via thesublingual mucosa (PEI**/SL) at a dose of 5×10¹⁰ virus particles, thestandard dose used in evaluations of pre-existing immunity to adenovirusin the mouse. Pre-exposure at this dose did not compromise vaccineefficacy and 100% of the animals survived challenge after exposure tomouse-adapted Ebola Zaire.

It is important to note that the mice were given a dose of Ebola that isconsidered toxic to primates—approximately 150 times more virus than wasnecessary. Given this information, it is believed that vaccination viasublingual administration is as effective as a single dose of vaccinegiven by intramuscular injection.

Sublingual Vaccination does not Promote Preferential Production ofAnti-Adenovirus CD4+ Memory T Cells in Mice with Prior Exposure toAdenovirus.

A significant problem with the use of adenovirus-based vaccines in thosewith prior exposure to adenovirus is that the innate response to thevirus carrier facilitates and favors the production of anti-adenovirusCD4+ memory T cells. While this can compromise the efficiency ofsubsequent booster immunizations if they are warranted, this issignificant in the context of certain disease states. In a recent trialusing an adenovirus-based vaccine against HIV it was found that patientswith prior exposure to adenovirus actually had a higher chance ofobtaining HIV than people that did not have prior contact with thevirus. Further investigation revealed this favoring of CD4 T cellexpansion, a primary site for HIV infection and replication, in responseto the adenovirus was providing an optimal setting for AIDS to develop.For additional information see Benlahrech A, et al., “Adenovirus vectorvaccination induces expansion of memory CD4 T cells with a mucosalhoming phenotype that are readily susceptible to HIV-1.” Proc. Natl.Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 2009 Nov. 24; 106(47):19940-19945.

FIGS. 14A-14E show data obtained in naïve mice 10 days afterintramuscular immunization. This data reveals that there is an evendistribution of CD8+ (1.52%, upper box, blue text, FIG. 14B) and CD4+ Tcells (1.91%, lower box, red text, FIG. 14B) activated against theadenovirus. In mice with prior exposure to adenovirus, intramuscularimmunization does favor production of CD4+ T cells (4.43% vs. 0.22%CD8+). A similar trend was noted for intranasal immunization. Sublingualimmunization of mice with pre-existing immunity to the virus, however,produces an even amount of CD4+ and CD8+ T cells, similar to what isseen in naïve animals (1.24% CD8 vs. 1.59% CD4). This strongly suggeststhat sublingual administration of adenovirus-based vaccines may beuseful in those with HIV.

Example 2

An antigen was dispersed within an amorphous solid in the followingmanner. A stock solution sucrose (400 mg/ml), sorbitol (400 mg/ml) andpoly(ethylene) glycol 3000 (10%) was directly mixed with antigen(adenovirus 5×10¹² particles to create a final formulation of sucrose(400 mg/ml), sorbitol (400 mg/ml) and poly(ethylene) glycol 3000 (10%)at a concentration known to induce the desired immune response. Thesolution was stirred at ambient temperature under aseptic conditions ona magnetic stir plate until the mixture appeared homogeneous. Themixture was then placed briefly in a cooled sonicating waterbath atmedium intensity to remove any air bubbles that may have developed inthe formulation during its preparation. The final formulation was thendispensed onto a flat backing surface in a laminar flow hood and allowedto dry at ambient temperatures (15-20° C.).

The physical properties of the antigen, certain concentrations andcombinations of sugars and sugar derivates and the backing materialprevent rigid alignment of water molecules in the dry state and insteadfoster the formation of an amorphous solid and pockets of antigen thatare evenly dispersed throughout. Examples of these pockets as visualizedin a final project by scanning electron microscopy are illustrated inFIG. 15D. There is no flowing liquid trapped in these pockets, insteadantigens are suspended in an amorphous solid in their native threedimensional state that is not compromised upon rehydration asillustrated by the infectious titer data in FIG. 5.

FIG. 15A depicts a comparative electron micrograph of an outer surfaceof a film containing sucrose (10 mg/ml), sorbitol (40 mg/ml) and 0.001%Pluronic F68. Long spiky crystals are notably obvious throughout theformulation after the drying process is complete. FIG. 15B is a crosssection of a dried film. The arrows indicate patches of crystal growthpresent throughout the film. FIG. 15C is an electron micrograph of outersurface of an amorphous solid containing sucrose (40 mg/ml), sorbitol(40 mg/ml) and poly(ethylene) glycol 3000 (1%). This surface is notablysmoother than that illustrated in FIG. 15A without notable crystalformation observed even when the film is broken (dark edges in photo).FIG. 15D is a cross section of dried film. The arrows illustrate pocketswithin the amorphous solid where antigen collects. The large cracks infilms depicted in FIG. 15B and FIG. 15D are artifacts created frompeeling films from backing material.

Example 3 Effect of Pre-Existing Immunity (PEI) to the Vaccine Carrieron Zaire Ebola Glycoprotein-Specific Multifunctional CD8⁺ T CellResponses after Sublingual Immunization

Naïve B10.Br mice and those with PEI established by the intramuscular(IM) or intranasal (IN) routes (10/group) were given 1×10⁸ infectiousvirus particles (ivp) of a Ad-CAGoptZGP sublingually. Ad-CAGoptZGP is areplication incompetent adenovirus serotype 5 vector that contains anoptimized coding sequence for the Ebola Zaire glycoprotein. FIG. 16Ashows analysis of CD8+ T cells expressing immunoreactive cytokines byflow cytometery (FACS). Numbers written in the upper right corner ofeach scatter plot represent the portion of each cell population that wasactivated by Ebola Zaire GP-specific peptide sequences. FIG. 16B depictscumulate analysis of FACS data. Each positively responding cell isassigned to total 7 possible combinations of IFN-γ, IL-2 and TNF-α andfinal numbers presented as a bar graph. FIG. 16C is a depiction of ZaireGP-specific multifunctional CD8⁺ T cells in pie chart format. Tripleproducers (cells producing IFN-γ, IL-2 and TNF-α) are depicted in thered arc. The blue arc highlights cells producing IFN-γ only. Numbers inthe pie chart denote the percentage of triple producers in a givenpopulation. Results are reported as the mean±the standard error of themean. **p<0.01, one-way ANOVA, Bonferroni/Dunn post-hoc analysis.

To further characterize the impact of PEI induction by the systemic ormucosal route on vaccine induced CD8⁺ T cell responses, a morecomprehensive functional analysis of cytokine producing CD8⁺ T cellsusing multi-parameter flow cytometry was performed. With this strategy,seven distinct cytokine-producing cell populations were delineated andcharacterized at the single-cell level based on varying combinations ofIFN-γ, IL-2 and TNF-α secretion patterns. The relative frequency ofthese distinct populations defines the quality of the vaccine-inducedCD8⁺ response. Complete analysis of IFN-γ producing cells identifiedfour distinct cell populations: those that produced only IFN-γ, thosethat produced IFN-γ and IL-2, those that produced IFN-γ and TNF-α andthose that produced IFN-γ, IL-2, and TNF-α at the same time. Thisanalysis further revealed a correlation between the frequency ofmultifunctional CD8⁺ T cells (those that produced all three cytokines inresponse to the Ebola glycoprotein antigen) and the manner by which PEIwas induced in mice immunized by SL route. As shown in FIG. 16A, thetotal frequency of IFN-γ producing CD8⁺ T cells was reduced by priorexposure to the adenovirus vaccine carrier induced by intramuscularinjection (0.66%: IM PEI/SL) and by instillation in the respiratorytract (0.21%: IN PEI/SL) with respect to naïve mice that had not beenexposed to adenovirus prior to immunization (Naïve, 1.91%). Despitethis, a significant rise in the quality of the response was noted whenpre-existing immunity was induced by the IM route (24.20±0.91%: Naive/SLvs. 37.04±1.91%: IM PEI/SL, p<0.01; FIG. 16C). The quality response wasalso not compromised by when PEI was induced by the respiratory route inthis treatment group (24.20±0.91%: Naive/SL vs. 20.93±4.92%: IN PEI/SL,p>0.05; FIG. 16C).

Example 4 Pre-Existing Immunity to the Adenovirus Carrier ImprovesSurvival after Sublingual Immunization

To fully define how PEI affects the immune response generated bysublingual immunization, naïve mice and those with systemic or mucosalPEI were challenged with a lethal dose of mouse-adapted Ebola Zaire(1,000 pfu˜30,000×LD₅₀) 28 days after sublingual immunization. Survival,weight loss and toxicity were closely monitored. The challenge wasuniformly lethal in control mice given saline (PBS, FIG. 17A). Eightypercent of naïve mice survived without notable loss of body weight (FIG.17A, B). Interestingly, PEI induced by the respiratory route did notsignificantly compromise the efficacy of the vaccine with 87.5% survivalobserved in this treatment group (IN PEI/SL, FIG. 17A). More strikingly,complete (100%) survival was noted in animals with pre-existing immunityinduced by the respiratory route, indicating that PEI boosts the potencyof the vaccine. This is an exciting finding since prior exposure toadenovirus in the general population primarily occurs through therespiratory mucosa and that, in the United States alone, approximately30-60% of the population has high levels of anti-adenovirus antibodieswhile 40-80% of those in Europe and Asia contain similar levels ofneutralizing antibody (NAB). The highest levels recorded to date arefound in sub-Saharan Africa (80-100% positive). Serum transaminases ofnaïve mice and those with PEI induced by the IM route were notsignificantly elevated during challenge (ALT, Naive/SL: 39±14.39 U/L, IMPEI/SL: 31.75±2.89 U/L; p>0.05) and (AST, Naive/SL: 108.5±32.15 U/L, IMPEI/SL: 114±38.42 U/L; p>0.05). This indicates that SL immunization innaïve animals and those with IM PEI prevented hepatotoxicity associatedwith Zaire Ebola infection (FIG. 17C).

Example 5 Effect of PEI on Survival after Lethal Challenge in GuineaPigs

The protective efficacy of SL immunization in guinea pigs in thepresence of systemic or mucosal PEI was evaluated. Guinea pigs(n=5/group) were challenged with 1,000×LD₅₀ of guinea pig-adapted ZEBOV(GP-ZEBOV) by i.p. injection. Disease progression was followed and signsand symptoms of infection measured as described for mice. Untreatedguinea pigs (negative control: PBS) demonstrated significant weight lossstarting from day 5 post-challenge that progressed until death on days 6to 9 (FIGS. 18A, B). Consistent with the mouse challenge results, 80% ofnaïve mice and those with systemic PEI vaccinated by the SL route(Naïve/SL, IM PEI/SL) survived without notable loss of body weight (FIG.18A, B). However, mucosal PEI did significantly compromise the efficacyof the vaccine when given by the SL route with only 40% survivalobserved in this treatment group (IN PEI/SL, p<0.05, FIG. 18A). Samplestaken from guinea pigs post-challenge did not contain significantlyelevated serum transaminases (ALT, Naive/SL: 46±2.16 U/L, IM PEI/SL:40±5.63 U/L, IN PEI/SL: 34.33±7.80 U/L) and (AST, Naive/SL: 65±10.6 U/L,IM PEI/SL: 201.5±120.5 U/L, IN PEI/SL: 218±173.2 U/L) levels afterchallenge (FIG. 18C).

Example 5 Effect of Formulation #16 on the In Vivo Performance of OurEbola Vaccine

Formulation 16 is a formulation comprising the amphipathic surfactant,poly (Maleic Anhydride-Alt-1 Octadecene substituted with3-(dimethylamino) propylamine (PMAL-C16) at a concentration of 10 mg/mlin phosphate buffered saline (pH 7.4). The vaccine was directly placedin this solution prior to administration to animals.

Mucosal PEI significantly compromised the production of ZaireGP-specific IFN-γ-secreting mononuclear cells isolated from spleen andother mucosal compartments (BAL, MNLs) in mice given either unformulatedor formulated vaccine (FIG. 19A). As expected, mucosal PEI didsignificantly reduce the frequency of Zaire GP-specific multifunctionalCD8⁺ T cells elicited by the unformulated vaccine (Naïve: 64.9±4.88% vs.IN PEI: 48.6±3.66%, p<0.05; FIG. 19C). Although PEI did reduce themagnitude of IFN-γ⁺ secreting cells in mice given the F#16 preparation,the multifunctional CD8⁺ T cell responses did not change(Naïve/unformulated: 64.9±4.88% vs. IN PEI/F16 (10 mg/ml): 60.0±9.1%,p>0.05; FIG. 19C). The memory response evaluated in mice given eitherunformulated or formulated vaccine revealed that formulation #16increased the memory response by a factor of 3.3 from 0.28±0.15%(unmodified) to 0.93±0.25% (formulation #16), (FIG. 19D).

Example 6 Effect of Formulation #16 (F16) on Survival after LethalChallenge in Guinea Pigs

Since disease progression and pathogenesis of Ebola infection in guineapigs more closely resembles those of the human disease than what is seenin the mouse, the protective efficacy of the vaccine formulated with F16was tested directly in this animal model with a 10-fold lower dose thanwhat was used in the previous challenge studies (1×10⁷ ivp/guinea pig).Prior to challenge, serum Zaire Ebola glycoprotein-specificimmunoglobulin isotype levels were evaluated to characterize the effectof the formulation on B cell-mediated antibody responses in this animalmodel. PEI significantly compromised anti-Zaire GP-specific IgG isotypesand IgM in levels with respect to the levels attained in naïve animalsgiven unformulated vaccine. Total IgG, IgG1, IgG2 and IgM were reducedby 95.8%, 97.8%, 88.7% and 99.4%, respectively, compared to the vaccinegiven to naïve guinea pigs (FIG. 20A). Formulation #16 increased theantigen-specific antibody responses with respect to the vaccine embeddedin a poly(lactic)-co-glycolic acid (PLGA) biodegradable polymer whichhad previously been shown to increase survival in animals with priorexposure to adenovirus. Thus, F16 increased total IgG, IgG1, IgG2 andIgM were increased by 12.6%, 8.9%, 16.7% and 21.1%, respectively (FIG.20A). The protective efficacy of formulation #16 in guinea pigs withmucosal PEI was also evaluated. Complete protection was achieved innaïve guinea pigs given unformulated vaccine without notable loss ofbody weight (FIG. 20B, C). Mucosal PEI did significantly compromise theefficacy of the unformulated vaccine when given by the same route asthere were no survivors in this treatment group (IN PEI/unformulated,FIG. 20B). PLGA encapsulated vaccine had no beneficial effect onsurvival at a low immunization dose but, formulation #16 did increasethe survival from 0% (IN PEI/unformulated or PLGA) to 20% (FIG. 20B).Samples taken from guinea pigs with PEI post-challenge did containelevated serum AST (IN PEI/unformulated: 2192±726.3 U/L, IN PEI/PLGA MS:879±197 U/L, IN PEI/F16: 1119±277.9 U/L) with respect to naïve animals(74.4.75±13.78 U/L), indicative of severe liver damage from Zaire Ebolainfection (FIG. 20D).

Therefore, the present invention is well adapted to attain the ends andadvantages mentioned as well as those that are inherent therein. Theparticular embodiments disclosed above are illustrative only, as thepresent invention may be modified and practiced in different butequivalent manners apparent to those skilled in the art having thebenefit of the teachings herein. Furthermore, no limitations areintended to the details of construction or design herein shown, otherthan as described in the claims below. It is therefore evident that theparticular illustrative embodiments disclosed above may be altered ormodified and all such variations are considered within the scope andspirit of the present invention. While compositions and methods aredescribed in terms of “comprising,” “containing,” or “including” variouscomponents or steps, the compositions and methods can also “consistessentially of” or “consist of” the various components and steps. Allnumbers and ranges disclosed above may vary by some amount. Whenever anumerical range with a lower limit and an upper limit is disclosed, anynumber and any included range falling within the range is specificallydisclosed. In particular, every range of values (of the form, “fromabout a to about b,” or, equivalently, “from approximately a to b,” or,equivalently, “from approximately a-b”) disclosed herein is to beunderstood to set forth every number and range encompassed within thebroader range of values. Also, the terms in the claims have their plain,ordinary meaning unless otherwise explicitly and clearly defined by thepatentee. Moreover, the indefinite articles “a” or “an,” as used in theclaims, are defined herein to mean one or more than one of the elementthat it introduces. If there is any conflict in the usages of a word orterm in this specification and one or more patent or other documentsthat may be incorporated herein by reference, the definitions that areconsistent with this specification should be adopted.

REFERENCES

-   1. Abbink, P., Lemckert, A. A., Ewald, B. A., Lynch, D. M.,    Denholtz, M., Smits, S., Holterman, L., Damen, I., Vogels, R.,    Thorner, A. R., O'Brien, K. L., Orville, A., Mansfield, K. G.,    Goudsmit, J., Havenga, M. J., and Barouch, D. H. (2007). Comparative    seroprevalence and immunogenicity of six rare serotype recombinant    adenovirus vaccine vectors from subgroups B and D. J. Virol. 81(9):    4654-4663.-   2. AVMA Guidelines on Euthanasia (Formerly Report of the AVMA Panel    on Euthanasia) June 2007.    http://www.avma.org/resources/euthanasia.pdf-   3. Bae, K., Choi, J., Jang, Y., Ahn, S., and Hur, B. (2009).    Innovative vaccine production technologies: the evolution and value    of vaccine production technologies. Arch. Pharm. Res. 32(4):    465-480.-   4. Beilin, B., Martin, F. C., Shavit, Y., Gale, R. P., and    Liebeskind, J. C. (1989). Suppression of natural killer cell    activity by high-dose narcotic anesthesia in rats. Brain Behav    Immun. 3, 129-137.-   5. Bolton, D. L., and Roederer, M. (2009). Flow cytometry and the    future of vaccine development. Expert Rev. Vaccines. 8(6): 779-789.-   6. Bolton, S. (1997). Pharmaceutical Statistics Practical and    Clinical Applications. New York, N.Y., Marcel Dekker, Inc.-   7. Bray, M., Davis, K., Geisbert, T., Schmaljohn, C., and    Huggins, J. (1998). A mouse model for evaluation of prophylaxis and    therapy of Ebola hemorrhagic fever. J Infect Dis. 178, 651-661.-   8. Bray, M., Hatfill, S., Hensley, L., and Huggins, J. W. (2001).    Haematological, biochemical and coagulation changes in mice,    guinea-pigs and monkeys infected with a mouse-adapted variant of    Ebola Zaire virus. J. Comp. Pathol. 125, 243-253.-   9. Chen, D., and Kristensen, D. (2009). Opportunities and challenges    of developing thermostable vaccines. Expert Rev. Vaccines. 8(5):    547-557.-   10. Connolly, B. M., Steele, K. E., Davis, K. J., Geisbert, T. W.,    Kell, W. M., Jaax, N. K., and Jahrling, P. B. (1999). Pathogenesis    of experimental Ebola virus infection in guinea pigs. J. Infect.    Dis. 1999 February; 179 Suppl 1:S203-17. 179, S203-S207.-   11. Costantino, H. R., Ilium, L., Brandt, G., Johnson, P. H., and    Quay, S. C. (2007). Intranasal delivery: physicochemical and    therapeutic aspects. Int. J. Pharm. 337(1-2): 1-24.-   12. Croyle, M. A., Patel, A., Tran, K. N., Gray, M., Zhang, Y.,    Strong, J. E., Feldmann, H., and Kobinger, G. P. (2008). Nasal    delivery of an adenovirus-based vaccine bypasses pre-existing    immunity to the vaccine carrier and improves the immune response in    mice. PLoS One 3(10): e3548.-   13. Desvignes, C., Estèves, F., Etchart, N., Bella, C., Czerkinsky,    C., and Kaiserlian, D. (1998). The murine buccal mucosa is an    inductive site for priming class I-restricted CD8+ effector T cells    in vivo. Clin. Exp. Immunol. 113(3): 386-393.-   14. Ducusin, J., Narvaez, D., Wilburn, S., Mahmoudi, F., Orris, P.,    Sobel, H., Bersola, E., and Ricardo, M. (2004). Waste Management and    Disposal During the Philippine Follow-Up Measles Campaign.    Washington, D.C., U.S.A. and Manilla, Phillipines, Health Care    without Harm and the Philippine Department of Health: 1-112.-   15. Geisbert, T. W., Pushko, P., Anderson, K., Smith, J., Davis, K.    J., and Jahrling, P. B. (2002). Evaluation in nonhuman primates of    vaccines against Ebola virus. Emerg Infect Dis 8, 503-507.-   16. Geber, W. F., Lefkowitz, S. S., and Hung, C. Y. (1977). Duration    of interferon inhibition following single and multiple injections of    morphine. J. Toxicol. Environ. Health. 2, 577-582.-   17. Giudice, E. L., and Campbell, J. D. (2006). Needle-free vaccine    delivery. Adv. Drug Deliv. Rev. 58(1): 68-89.-   18. Hassan, N., Ahad, A., Ali, M., and Ali, J. (2010). Chemical    permeation enhancers for transbuccal drug delivery. Expert Opin Drug    Deliv. 7(1): 97-112.-   19. Hill, M. W. (1984). Cell Renewal in Oral Epithelia. The    Structure and Function of Oral Mucosa. J. Meyer, Squier, C. A.,    Gerson, S. J., Eds. New York, Pergamon.-   20. Hutton, G., and Tediosi, F. (2006). The costs of introducing a    malaria vaccine through the expanded program on immunization in    Tanzania. Am. J. Trop. Med. Hyg. 75(2 Suppl.): 119-130.-   21. Hung, C. Y., Lefkowitz, S. S, and Geber, W. F. (1973).    Interferon inhibition by narcotic analgesics. Proc. Soc. Exp. Biol.    Med. 142, 106-111.-   22. Ibrahim, J., Gerson, S. J., and Meyer, J. (1985). Frequency and    distribution of binucleate cells in oral epithelium of several    species of laboratory rodents. Arch. Oral Biol. 30(8): 627-633.-   23. Ingulli, E. (2007). Tracing tolerance and immunity in vivo by    CFSE-labeling of administered cells. Methods Mol. Biol. 380:    365-376.-   24. Jacobsen, J., Nielsen, E. B., Brondum-Nielsen, K.,    Christensen, M. E., Olin, H. B., Tommerup, N., Rassing, M. R.    (1999). Filter-grown TR146 cells as an in vitro model of human    buccal epithelial permeability. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 107(2): 138-146.-   25. Jacobson, R. M., Swan, A., Adegbenro, A., Ludington, S. L.,    Wollan, P. C., and Poland, G. A. (2001). Making vaccines more    acceptable—methods to prevent and minimize pain and other common    adverse events associated with vaccines. Vaccine 19(17-19):    2418-2427.-   26. Kane, A., Lloyd, J., Zaffran, M., Simonsen, L., and Kane, M.    (1999). Transmission of hepatitis B, hepatitis C and human    immunodeficiency viruses through unsafe injections in the developing    world: model-based regional estimates. Bull. World Health Organ.    77(10): 801-807.-   27. Kobinger, G. P., Feldmann, H., Zhi, Y., Schumer, G., Gao, G.,    Feldmann, F., Jones, S., and Wilson, J. M. (2006). Chimpanzee    adenovirus vaccine protects against Zaire Ebola virus. Virology    346(2): 394-401.-   28. Levine, M. M., and Robins-Browne, R. (2009). Vaccines, global    health and social equity. Immunol. Cell Biol. 87(4): 274-278.-   29. Mao, S., Cun, D., and Kawaashima, Y. (2009). Novel    Non-Injectable Formulation Approaches of Peptides and Proteins.    Delivery Technologies for Biopharmaceuticals Peptides, Proteins,    Nucelic Acids and Vaccines. L. Jorgensen, and Nielsen, H. M., Eds.    West Sussex, United Kingdom, John Wiley & Sons Ltd.: 29-67.-   30. Marone, G., Stellato, C., Mastronardi, P., Mazzarella, B.    (1993). Mechanisms of activation of human mast cells and basophils    by general anesthetic drugs. Ann. Fr. Anesth. Reanim. 12, 116-125.-   31. Matthias, D. M., Robertson, J., Garrison, M. M., Newland, S.,    and Nelson, C. (2007). Freezing temperatures in the vaccine cold    chain: a systematic literature review. Vaccine 25(20): 3980-3986.-   32. Mutsch, M., Zhou, W., Rhodes, P., Bopp, M., Chen, R. T., Linder,    T., Spyr, C., and Steffen, R. (2004). Use of the inactivated    intranasal influenza vaccine and the risk of Bell's palsy in    Switzerland. N. Engl. J. Med. 350(9): 896-903.-   33. Nir, Y., Paz, A., Sabo, E., and Potasman, I. (2003). Fear of    injections in young adults: prevalence and associations. Am. J.    Trop. Med. Hyg. 68(3): 341-344.-   34. Nwanegbo, E., Vardas, E., Gao, W., Whittle, H., Sun, H., Rowe,    D., Robbins, P. D., and Gambotto, A. (2004). Prevalence of    neutralizing antibodies to adenoviral serotypes 5 and 35 in the    adult populations of The Gambia, South Africa, and the United    States. Clin. Diagn. Lab Immunol. 11(2): 351-357.-   35. Pather, S. I., Rathbone, M. J., and Senel, S. (2008). Current    status and the future of buccal drug delivery systems. Expert Opin.    Drug Deliv. 5(5): 531-542.-   36. Piersma, F. E., Daemen, M. A., Bogaard, A. E., and    Buurman, W. A. (1999). Interference of pain control employing    opioids in in vivo immunological experiments. Lab Animal 33,    328-333.-   37. Prüss-Ustün, A., Rapiti, E., and Hutin, Y. (2005). Estimation of    the global burden of disease attributable to contaminated sharps    injuries among health-care workers. Am. J. Ind. Med. 48(6): 482-490.-   38. Reed, L. J., and Muench, H. (1938). A simple method of    estimating fifty percent endpoints. Am. J. Hyg. 27:493-497.-   39. Rupniak, H. T., Rowlatt, C., Lane, E. B., Steele, J. G.,    Trejdosiewicz, L. K., Laskiewicz, B., Povey, S., Hill, B. T. (1985).    Characteristics of four new human cell lines derived from squamous    cell carcinomas of the head and neck. J. Natl. Cancer Inst. 75(4):    621-635.-   40. Russell, K. L., Hawksworth, A. W., Ryan, M. A., Strickler, J.,    Irvine, M., Hansen, C. J., Gray, G. C., and Gaydos, J. C. (2006).    Vaccine-preventable adenoviral respiratory illness in US military    recruits, 1999-2004. Vaccine 24(15): 2835-2842.-   41. Shojaei, A. H. (1998). Buccal Mucosa as a Route for Systemic    Drug Delivery: A Review. J. Pharm. Pharmaceut. Sci. 1(1): 15-30.-   42. Simonsen, L., Kane, A., Lloyd, J., Zaffran, M., and Kane, M.    (1999). Unsafe injections in the developing world and transmission    of bloodborne pathogens: a review. Bull. World Health Organ. 77(10):    789-800.-   43. Soma, L. R. (1983). Anesthetic and analgesic considerations in    the experimental animal. Ann NY Acad Sci 406, 32-47.-   44. Stellato, C., Cirillo, R., de Paulis, A., et al. (1992). Human    basophil/mast cell releasability. IX. Heterogeneity of the effects    of opioids on mediator release. Anesthesiology. 77, 932-940.-   45. Stroher, U., and Feldmann, H. (2006). Progress towards the    treatment of Ebola haemorrhagic fever. Expert Opin Investig Drugs    15, 1523-1535.-   46. Thacker, E. E., Timares, L., Matthews, Q. L. (2009). Strategies    to overcome host immunity to adenovirus vectors in vaccine    development. Expert Rev. Vaccines. 8(6): 761-777.-   47. Wertz, P. W., and Squier, C. A. (1991). Cellular and molecular    basis of barrier function in oral epithelium. Crit. Rev. Ther. Drug    Carrier Syst. 8(3): 237-269.-   48. World Health Organization, (2005). Management of solid    health-care waste at primary health-care centres: a decision-making    guide. Department of Immunization, Vaccines and Biologicals (IVB),    Protection of the Human Environment Water, Sanitation and Health    (WSH) Immunization, Protection of the Human Environment Water,    Sanitation and Health (WSH). Geneva, Switzerland, World Health    Organization: 1-53.-   49. World Health Organization, UNICEF, and World Bank. (2009). State    of the World's Vaccines and Immunization. Geneva, Switzerland, World    Health Organization.-   50. Yuki, Y., and Kiyono, H. (2009). Mucosal vaccines: novel    advances in technology and delivery. Expert Rev. Vaccines. 8(8):    1083-1097.-   Zhou, W., Pool, V., DeStefano, F., Iskander, J. K., Haber, P., and    Chen, R. T. (2004). A potential signal of Bell's palsy after    parenteral inactivated influenza vaccines: reports to the Vaccine    Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS)—United States, 1991-2001.    Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 13(8): 505-510.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method comprising: (a) providing an antigen anda solution comprising: (i) poly(maleic anhydride-alt-1 octadecene); and(ii) a sugar, sugar derivative or combination thereof; (b) dispersingthe antigen within the solution at ambient temperatures to form amixture; and (c) drying the mixture at ambient temperatures so as toform an amorphous solid.
 2. The method of claim 1, further comprisingcasting the mixture onto a backing surface prior to drying the mixture.3. The method of claim 1, wherein the sugar or sugar derivative isselected from the group consisting of: glucose, dextrose, fructose,lactose, maltose, xylose, sucrose, corn sugar syrup, sorbitol, hexitol,maltilol, xylitol, mannitol, melezitose, raffinose, and a combinationthereof.
 4. The method of claim 1, wherein the mixture further comprisesa water-soluble polymer.
 5. The method of claim 1, wherein the antigenis and/or is derived from a virus and is present in an amount of fromabout 1×10⁶ to about 1×10¹³ virus particles.
 6. The method of claim 1,wherein the antigen is and/or is derived from bacteria and is present inan amount of from about or about 1×10³ to about 1×10¹³ colony formingunits.
 7. The method of claim 1, wherein the PMAL-C16 (poly (maleicanhydride-alt-1 octadecene) is substituted with 3-(dimethylamino)propylamine).
 8. A method comprising: (a) providing an antigen and asolution comprising a sugar, sugar derivative or a combination thereofand PMAL-C16 (poly (maleic anhydride-alt-1 octadecene) substituted with3-(dimethylamino) propylamine); (b) dispersing the antigen within thesolution to form a mixture; and (c) drying the mixture to form anamorphous solid.
 9. The method of claim 8 wherein the drying step isperformed at an ambient temperature.
 10. The method of claim 1, whereinthe antigen is and/or is derived from a virus.
 11. The method of claim1, wherein the antigen is and/or is derived from bacteria.
 12. Themethod of claim 1, wherein the antigen is and/or is derived from aparasite.
 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the antigen is and/or isderived from a prion.
 14. The method of claim 8, wherein the antigen isa live or inactivated virus and is present in an amount of from about1×10⁶ to about 1×10¹³ virus particles.
 15. The method of claim 8,wherein the antigen is a live or inactivated bacteria and is present inan amount of from about 1×10³ to about 1×10¹³ colony forming units. 16.The method of claim 1, wherein the amorphous solid has a thickness ofabout 0.05 millimeters to about 5 millimeters.